On Saturday, September 1, 2012 3:55:42 AM UTC+5:30, Nathan wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:23:41 PM UTC-7, dE wrote: > >> >> Another flaw with Google and device manufacturer's strategy was that they >> didn't publicize the fact that Android is itself developed for non-profit . >> . . >> > They can't advertise that because it isn't true. Google is a for-profit > organization, so are all the manufacturers. I'm not saying that's bad - I'm > a capitalist myself. > > Android was developed as opensource because it fit Google's business > strategies, not because of some benevolent desire to make the world a > better place by raining down free software and technology available to the > common >
How does Google benefit by making the project opensource? > > so it could bring a feeling of charity among the people so increased >> adaptation rates. >> > > Or it might contribute to users thinking that developers that charge money > for apps are somehow taking advantage of the system if their apps aren't > also free and open source. > > I doubt that the "feeling of charity" has been or would be a big > contributor to Android's growth. If you know of research that does suggest > that, be sure to post it. > In recent times, we see a boost in usage of FF (otherwise it was falling in front of chrome) and recently I noticed there've been attempts by Mozilla to increase awareness about opensource and the fact that Firefox is developed for non-profit and Mozilla is itself a non profit organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_%28Source_StatCounter%29.svg > > >> The common man still things that Android is Google propitiatory product. >> > Perhaps. But the top used apps on Android include Android Market, Gmail, > Google Search, Google Maps and YouTube. Those are all Google proprietary > last I checked. > If Yahoo, Microsoft and other device manufactures didn't come up to contribute or fork the project to support other web service providers, there's nothing Google can do about. > > No, I think the common man doesn't know, and possibly doesn't care, what > Open Source means. As they do, it might conjure up images of a utopian > society, or possibly an open and flexible company as opposed to a closed > conformist that makes some other phones that are popular. > > And why should they care? Customers care more about results. For fans, it > means variety, customization, and flexibility. For critics, it means > fragmentation, inconsistencies, more bugs, and more of a learning curve. > > A hard core open source person might even say that Android is not Open > Source enough. Since Honeycomb source was locked up for a year and all. > (note, I haven't really used Android Source, and don't have a horse in that > war). > But don't count on some new platform like the FireFox Mobile OS succeeding > just because it is more open source. Users are going to want features, > usability, or other reasons besides seeing Open Source written on a sticker. > We support opensource cause it's supposed to do betterment for the people (themselves and the world), and with Android we see that. When we say people are not aware of opensource, we also mean that they don't know the benefits of opensource technology and Android as opposed to iOS or Windows phone. Largest e.g. is Linux desktop, who's administrations despite being hard is used by ~1.5% of the world and the primary reason for most of these people is that it's GPLed software. So we can't conclude that people will not given a damn about Apache/GPL/GNU projects, had it been so the 1000s of developers wouldn't have volunteered to develop opensource software and development is quiet a lot of effort for charity, finally they're also people. And we see even more of non-developer contributors daily. Also no doubt -- functionality comes first, but if a closed source and opensource alternative are functionally equal (or even if the opensource alternative is a bit lesser), a person who's aware of advantages of opensource software will prefer the opensource alternative. Take my e.g., I perfer FF for Android, but cause it has a lot of memory leaks, I cant use it, I use Dolphin (which uses Android webkit). > Yes, software patents are very bad because the Patent Office was gamed >>> by clever attorneys who knew the office was clueless about technology. >>> >> >> But question is, what's Google (one of the biggest supporters of >> opensource software apart from IBM) doing towards it? >> > > Lobbying for better patent laws, I suppose. Trying to buy up patents for > defensive purposes. Letting the hardware manufacturers take the brunt of > the patent fights. > This's not right, I wrote about this in my blog -- Get royalties from the source, not consumers > > > If Google suffers, it's cause of it's own fault. Apple vs Samsung also >> seems to be the same case. >> > Are you saying that the patent trouble has resulted from Google failing to > tout Open Source ness enough? > > If so, I don't agree. What does the one thing have to do with the other? > > FireFox Mobile OS *will* have patent lawsuits, if any manufacturers manage > to make profit from it. And if there is no profit in it, manufacturers will > not use it. > > I wrote about it in my blog -- "Discourages use of opensource software" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/android-discuss/-/DHe_mPEyTGsJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
